You do not support this statement with law, case or otherwise.
Always fun when someone requests what they themselves didn't provide.
As I said earlier:
In this case, the person who had previously consent was not present (thanks to being arrested), the remaining occupant then gave permission.
Clearly you didn't RTFA... as this case is about just that.
One occupant refused consent, was later arrested and the remaining occupant provided consent... which in turn allowed the police to search the property.
Please support this with case law showing a person moved to throw out evidence obtained under those circumstances and the motion was denied.
Why not ask for a purple & green elephant that is wearing a tutu, eating a ice cream cone while singing the star spangled banner?
When you attempt to frame your request in such a way, you aren't likely to get many hits... and it is rather deceptive to attempt that when trying to have a discussion.
What I described above was a series of circumstances beyond your own based on a little thinking and understanding of the law (note how you still haven't cited anything contrary to anything I've said?).
In People v. Hoxter, People v. Santiago & Allen v. State of Alabama and plenty more, the courts have upheld the idea of a minor being able to grant permission (often depending on circumstances).
United States v Rith is also a good read as it applies to adult children, even discussing some circumstances where a third-party consent may not be valid, rent paying (Chapman v. United States), lock on door (United States v. Kinney), or explicit agreement... which was mentioned as a possibility (rather than as a specific citation of such a case), so given United States v. Morning and others, it is not to much to believe that even a paper agreement may not invalidate the results of a third-party consented search.
Sorry for having to do your job and thinking for you.